Council leader cleared of Nazi jibe

Just fancy that! The Northants Evening Telegraph reports that:

A council leader comparing one of his opponents to a Nazi was just part of the "normal cut and thrust of politics", behaviour watchdogs have said.

The Standards Board for England, which maintains ethical standards among councillors, was called in to investigate Northamptonshire County Council leader Jim Harker (Con, Kettering Rural) after he compared the leader of the opposition at County Hall to Hitler's propaganda minster, Joseph Goebbels.

But following a month-long investigation, the organisation has said it will take no further action over the Nazi jibe.

Inspector Hazel Salisbury said: "Differences of opinion, and the defence of those opinions, through members' arguments and public debate are an essential part of the cut and thrust of politics. In a democracy, members of a public body should be able to publically express disagreement with each other."

I wonder what Jon Gaunt will have to say about that? Full story HERE.

See: Jon Gaunt sacked by TalkSport

PS. I was going to illustrate this post with a large swastika but I chickened out. You can't be too careful!!

A sorry tale of drugs and climate change

Another day, another public apology and another blow for freedom of speech. This time it's the government's top drugs adviser Professor David Nutt who has been forced to say sorry. His "crime"? Suggesting that the risks of taking ecstasy are no worse than riding a horse, which is responsible for more than 100 deaths a year.

This afternoon home secretary Jacqui Smith told the House:

"I made clear to Professor Nutt that I felt his comments went beyond the scientific advice that I expect of him as the chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. He apologised to me for his comments and I've asked him to, as well, apologise to the families of the victims of ecstasy."

"Beyond the scientific advice that I expect of him?" Er, what advice would that be? Clearly, there is no room for proper debate (or genuine risk assessment) in the Home Office.

Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, politicians and campaigners have demanded that the DUP's Sammy Wilson be sacked after the environment minister blocked a government advertisement campaign on climate change saying the adverts were part of an "insidious propaganda campaign".

The BBC News website reports that:

Brian Wilson, of the Green Party, said the environment minister should be removed from office for refusing to recognise climate change. "He is a climate change sceptic. We have got to take all measures we can to reduce our carbon footprint."

Including, it seems, sacking people who don't share your views.

Is it any wonder that so few politicians are prepared to stand up and be counted on issues such as passive smoking? Wander off message and the choice is simple: say "sorry" - or say goodbye to your career.

Full stories HERE and HERE.

Free speech stubbed out

Last year, as I wrote HERE, I travelled to Brussels to attend a meeting of "EU experts, civil society and social partners to support the Commission's Impact Assessment on the forthcoming initiative on smoke-free environments".

Seconds into the meeting, to which I had been invited, several hands shot up and two or three delegates announced that if I didn't leave they would leave the room. Others nodded in agreement. In the EU, it seems, free speech and tobacco operate on different planets.

Next week, also in Brussels, a group called The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP) was due to hold a two-day conference under the patronage of Godfrey Bloom MEP (UKIP). The event was called "Smoking Bans and Lies" and the programme was unambiguously partisan.

Venue was the European Parliament building and I understand that several readers of this blog were planning to attend.

Yesterday morning it was reported that the conference had been moved from the Parliament to a hotel near the Parliament building. Last night I was told by Gawain Towler, press officer for UKIP in Brussels, that the original conference hosted by Godfrey Bloom has been cancelled and in its place is a "new" conference with a very similar programme. (Don't ask me why. I'm only the messenger.)

The "new" conference will be called "Thinking Is Forbidden" and officially it will be hosted not by Godfrey Bloom but by the British arm of the Independence/Democracy Group (aka UKIP). Delegates who were due to attend "Smoking Bans and Lies" will be invited to attend "Thinking Is Forbidden" instead.

The reason for this game of musical chairs seems to be related to THIS outrageous letter which was sent, in December, to Hans-Gert Pöttering, president of the European Parliament, by Florence Berteletti Kemp, director of the Smoke Free Partnership (which includes Cancer Research UK).

In her letter, Kemp argues that "this event should not under any circumstances take place on the premises of the European Parliament". She then gives the following reasons:

• "the event appears to be in contravention of Parliament’s own rules of procedure and is detrimental to the dignity of Parliament"

• "the event goes against all of Parliament’s adopted reports and the European Community’s legislation and commitments on this topic"

• "it violates the spirit of the International Framework Convention on Tobacco Control"

There's a lot more of this high-handed nonsense in Kemp's letter and any self-respecting institution would have torn it up and sent her packing. But not the European Parliament. I am told that on on Tuesday 12 January a committee met in camera and decided that permission for the conference to be held within the Parliament building had been withdrawn.

Neither Godfrey Bloom nor anyone else associated with "Smoking Bans and Lies" were told that the conference was on the agenda. In their absence, the committee acted as judge and jury. According to UKIP's Gawain Towler, the organisers only discovered that they were barred from using the Parliament building on Tuesday this week, a full seven days after the meeting.

What has happened beggars belief. I am assured that the venue was secured months in advance. Delegates and speakers have made travel arrangements. Hotel accommodation has been reserved. Video conferencing links have been booked.

And yet ... is anyone surprised? The anti-tobacco lobby is ruthless and will happily suppress any form of debate, or opposition.

Ironically, thanks to these unelected bureaucrats, news of the conference will almost certainly reach a far wider audience than would otherwise have been the case.

Note: as I understand it, "Thinking Is Forbidden" will take place at the Hotel Berlyamont Silken, Blvd Charlemagne 11, Brussels, on 27-28 January. For details/confirmation contact Gawain Towler, Independence/Democracy Group, telephone +32 (0)2 284 6384.

How the media works

The Daily Mail doesn't like Jonathan Ross or Russell Brand. That much is clear. Ever since the Andrew Sachs "scandal" last year there has been a never-ending series of articles criticising both men.

Today the paper featured a stinging attack on Brand in which it was reported that the comedian's 'Scandalous' tour is "playing to disappointingly packed theatres".

The Mail is particularly miffed that Brand "does not appear to have a shred of shame or remorse about the outrage he caused". Worse, he "now spiels endlessly on about the unfortunate Sachs".

I don't condone the original incident but given the subsequent headlines, and the nature of his act (which no-one is forced to see), I don't see why Brand shouldn't mention it. Whatever happened to free speech?

Words tumble from the pen keyboard of the outraged hack. Brand, we are told, is "self-obsessed", "shallow", "sordid", "deluded", "one-dimensional", "talentless", "disgraceful". It's enough to make me want to see the show myself.

As it happens, a friend of mine used to work for the Mail. One day she was given the job of interviewing US comedienne Joan Rivers and it was made very clear that she was expected to do a hatchet job.

The problem was, she got on rather well with Joan and liked her - a lot. But if I remember correctly, she still had to put the boot in, which upset her at the time.

I find it hard to believe that a bright young cosmopolitan journalist could be as offended by Russell Brand as the report in the Mail suggests. Then I remembered Joan Rivers.

Update on Thursday, January 22, 2009 by Simon Clark

The Times reports that "Jonathan Ross returns to TV with Bush jokes" (see HERE). How lame is that? Surely some Obama jokes would have been a bit more cutting edge? And courageous.

Entropa - symbol of free speech

It is reported that "The Czech EU presidency has apologised for an art installation it commissioned that lampoons national stereotypes" (see HERE and HERE). Sadly, even the artist David Cerny has expressed regret. He has no need to. This is the most wickedly funny artwork I have ever seen.

Normally you would have to drag me kicking and screaming into an art exhibition. This, however, is something I would happily cross the Channel to see. As The Times reports:

Entropa, a garish depiction of the 27 member states created to mark the Czech Republic’s presidency of the EU, revealed its full glory when it was switched on. The eyes lit up on the vampire representing Romania, Greece glowed red with bushfires and Italian soccer players began to masturbate with their footballs.

If the EU can't see the funny side then we really are better off out. Actually, I suspect that the installation - currently on view at the European Council building in Brussels - will be a smash hit with visitors from all over the world.

Entropa is a welcome symbol of free speech. It demonstrates that political statements don't have to be hectoring or boring. They can be funny as well.

How ironic that genuine liberals in countries like Britain now look to former Eastern bloc states like the Czech Republic for inspiration and leadership.

Apologise? I should think not.

Taking liberties with liberty

Since I launched this blog in March 2007 there has been a critically acclaimed film called Taking Liberties, and the British Library is currently hosting an exhibition, also called Taking Liberties. The latter was opened on 29 October by Gordon Brown (who else?) with lots of mutual backslapping.

Thankfully not everyone falls for the idea that Britain is a beacon of tolerance and liberty around the world and on The Free Society website Dennis Hayes, founder of Academics for Academic Freedom, offers his own - somewhat caustic - review of the exhibition.

In Taking Liberties you can join in the historical and contemporary debates by picking up a wristband and answering questions in each section. You even have a Citizen Number. I was Citizen Number 127659. Although you cannot be traced or identified, it is scarily New Labour, with a hint of childish wristband wearing activism.

At the end of the exhibition you can become part of the struggle for liberty by putting ‘Your Thoughts’ on a ‘post-it’ note on a wall. That’s what freedom of speech comes down to in the British Library – freedom of speech as graffiti or litter that no one reads.

Well, I did. The best comment I found was ‘I’m off to the pub’ and there is still more chance in contemporary Britain of getting into an argument about something of substance over a pint in a pub than playing at being a ‘citizen’ in this exhibition. That is until the government bans heated argument and sends free thinkers out to stand and shiver with the smokers.

Full article HERE.

Why Roger is hopping mad

By coincidence, Conservative MEP Roger Helmer has sent me a copy of a post he has written for his blog. It concerns a hearing he has just attended in the European parliament. (Note: the hearing is NOT the reason I am in Brussels, although it could have implications for an initiative we are working on with our European partners.)

Roger writes:

A series of anti-smoking campaigners vied with each other to vilify the tobacco industry, accusing it of dreadful things like lobbying, and seeking to influence legislation, and promoting the interests of its shareholders, and doing other cynical things like awarding prizes for Corporate Social Responsibility and contributing to anti-AIDS programmes. The sort of things that just about all major industries do, in fact.

The World Health Organisation has initiated the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which the EU and 26 member-states have signed up to (The Czech Republic, God bless it, has declined to sign). They are now producing "guidelines for implementation". Anti-smoking lobbyists are proposing that the guidelines should preclude legislators from speaking to the industry. Yep. You read that right. They want to ban MEPs from speaking to tobacco companies.
 
Frankly, I was hopping mad when I heard this proposal. It is absolutely fundamental to any kind of good governance that legislators should discuss proposed legislation with those affected, and that parliamentarians should talk to businesses in areas they represent. I represent the East Midlands, home to Imperial Tobacco. Hundreds of their employees are my constituents, and a quarter of my constituents smoke. I personally hate smoking, but I respect the right of my constituents to make grown-up choices. Imperial has already been hammered by the EU's Tobacco Directive, which like so much EU regulation had the primary effect of moving jobs, production and investment out of the EU altogether.
 
The WHO proposal is an assault on democracy. Listening to constituents, and to businesses, is a key part of what I am paid for, and I shall continue to do so without let or hindrance from the WHO.
 
If we start with tobacco, where do we stop? Many of my colleagues would like to start restricting the drinks industry. They believe that "Big Oil" is frustrating their attempts to curb global warming. Packaged food companies contribute to obesity. Cars cause accidents and pollute the atmosphere. They have problems with the pharmaceutical industry.  This could grow into a full-scale assault on business and capitalism - which of course is exactly what many in the green lobby want.

The full post should appear HERE shortly.

Update on Thursday, July 17, 2008 by Simon Clark

Full blog post HERE.

Kerry McCarthy - an update

When I blogged yesterday I intended it to be my last post on the subject of Kerry McCarthy. To recap: the member of parliament for Bristol East wrote about the smoking ban on her blog on June 29 but I only mentioned it here (on July 3) when I discovered that she had published a second post on July 1 in which she made specific reference to Forest and linked our champagne tea party at the House of Commons to Libby Brooks' class-based critique in the Guardian.

Not unreasonably, I feel, I invited readers and supporters of Forest to respond. Come Saturday night there were 200+ comments on her blog. (To put this in perspective, most of her posts attract no comments at all.) On Sunday she responded to those comments with a further post. To my mind, we had stretched this particular thread as far as it would go. So yesterday afternoon, to wrap things up, I sent her a rather cheery email:

Dear Kerry,

Thank you for your response to the comments that appeared on your blog. For your information, you may be interested to see [HERE] the original blog post that encouraged people to write to you.

The reason [your] post came to our attention - unlike your previous posts on smoking - was the reference to Forest. I have now added THIS post:

I won't go over all the issues again, but I hope we have demonstrated that, in some quarters at least, there remains a great deal of anger and resentment at the extent of the smoking ban, which I don't think will go away this side of an election.

In our experience, based on thousands of emails, blog posts, telephone calls and letters, most of the anger comes from "lifelong Labour supporters" who say that they "will never vote Labour again" as a result of the ban.

They may change their tune after a few years of Conservative government, but it indicates the deep sense of betrayal that many natural Labour voters feel as a result of legislation that went much further than promised in the 2005 Labour manifesto.

Should you be interested:

1. A short video of the recent Forest/Boisdale party is on Friction TV HERE:
2. An equally short video of the Forest reception at the House of Commons can be viewed HERE:
3. A report of the HoC event is on our Free Society blog HERE:

Boisdale, I should add, is NOT a private members' club as you stated more than once. It's a very public bar and restaurant where you would be very welcome to join us for lunch or dinner at any time.

Kind regards,

Simon Clark
Director, Forest

To my surprise (I wasn't expecting a reply), I received the following email which I reproduce in full:

I think it's quite clear that your strategy is to mobilise supporters to hound those who have publicly supported the ban, with often quite abusive emails, until they decide that it is simply not worth the hassle of saying anything in public about it again.
 
As some of those posting comments said, the normal response is for the subject of their attention to post a statement and then close down the blog. It says a lot for your commitment to free speech that you encourage such behaviour.

To be honest, I was a little taken aback. My second impulse was to ignore it. My third reaction was to draft this post and sit on it overnight. This morning I thought, "To hell with it."

So, let's get this right. It's OK for elected representatives like Kerry McCarthy to praise the smoking ban (and imply that Forest is an elitist organisation), but it's not OK for Forest to alert people to her comments in order that they can give her a different perspective. In her eyes, that amounts to hounding.

Worse, she claims that "it's quite clear that your strategy is to mobilise supporters to hound those who have publicly supported the ban, with often quite abusive emails [my emphasis]". If McCarthy had bothered to read the posts on this blog she would know that I have gone out of my way to ask people NOT to send abusive emails.

Yes, a few went a bit too far, but the overwhelming majority were well within the bounds of civil debate. She should see what we have to put up with from anti-smokers. One local councillor - from Bristol, funnily enough - once sent me a scrawled note declaring "I hope you die of cancer". He's not the only one.

To top it all, she suggests that we "encourage" people to target blogs which then have to be shut down. Excuse me?! Is it too much to ask that she provide evidence of a single blog or website that has been closed down as a result of our alleged "behaviour"?

What we have here is an MP rattled by the fact that 200 people have had the audacity to take issue with her comments on an open blog - so she shoots the messenger.

Free speech? Don't make me laugh. The anti-smoking lobby doesn't know the meaning of it.

PS. If you have anything to add on this topic, please post your comment here, not on Kerry McCarthy's blog. We have made our point. There is nothing to be gained by posting further comments there. Let it lie.

Beware the sanitisation of public debate

A timely article by Claire Fox, director of the Institute of Ideas, on The Free Society blog. Reflecting on the fate that has befallen the Archbishop of Canterbury in recent days, she notes how Dr Rowan Williams has joined a long list of public figures, from DNA pioneer Professor James Watson to TV's David Bellamy to Pope Benedict XVI who have recently been denounced and told – YOU CAN’T SAY THAT. 

The problem is less big government, or the nanny state, and more an informal narrowing of what all of us can say in the public sphere ... We have to defend free speech by asserting that we can say that, we will say that, and no amount of media hysteria or moral outrage will silence us. If we don’t, we can expect a free society to go up in smoke.

Full article HERE.

Peer pressure rules, OK?

Last week's sports pages were dominated by one story - the 50th anniversary of the Munich plane crash that killed 23 people including eight members of Manchester United's famous "Busby Babes". All week there were dire warnings that some Man City fans might abuse the minute's silence to honour the victims. Before yesterday's Manchester derby some commentators were even calling for a "lifetime ban" for any supporter caught shouting out.

In the event everything passed off smoothly and supporters of both teams respected the occasion. Nevertheless, it has to be said. A lifetime ban? For shouting during a minute's silence? Bad manners, yes. Tasteless, certainly. But why should it be considered a major offence punishable by a "lifetime ban"?

What next? Are we going to ban everyone who boos the opposition's national anthem or calls Frank Lampard a "wanker"? In a free society people have a right to be offensive, up to a point.

I say "up to a point" because there has to be a limit to our tolerance. I once had someone thrown out of a football ground for making "monkey" chants at an opposition player and I don't regret it for a second. I didn't however want the guy banned for life.

More often than not peer pressure will govern people's behaviour without the need for draconian penalties - and that's what happened yesterday.

Rights and wrongs of free speech

I woke up this morning to the Today programme and the sound of two MPs - Julian Lewis (Conservative) and Evan Harris (Liberal) - heatedly discussing the pros and cons of tonight's debate at the Oxford Union where BNP leader Nick Griffin and discredited historian David Irving have been invited to speak.

First, I should declare an interest. Julian Lewis and I go back a long way. From 1983-85 he helped raise funds to support a national student magazine that I founded and edited. (One of our goals was to strike a blow against the closed shop system whereby undergraduates had to be members of the National Union of Students.) For five years thereafter I worked for him as director of the Media Monitoring Unit which he founded in 1985 with former Labour minister Lord Chalfont to combat unrestrained political bias on television news and current affairs.

Yesterday, Julian announced that he was resigning "with great sadness" his life membership of the Oxford Union, arguing that the right to free speech should not guarantee access to "privileged platforms". In his letter to the union's officers, he wrote:

"Nothing which happens in Monday's debate can possibly offset the boost you are giving to a couple of scoundrels who can put up with anything except being ignored. It is sheer vanity on your part to imagine that any argument you deploy, or any vote you carry will succeed in causing them damage. They have been exposed and discredited time and again by people vastly more qualified than you in arenas hugely more suited to the task than an undergraduate talking-shop, however venerable."

I know how carefully Julian chooses his words and, to be fair, he isn't arguing that people shouldn't have the right to say (within the law) what they think. His principal grievance is with the Oxford Union for offering Irving and Griffin a prestigious arena for their views.

There's no direct comparison but there are echoes of the argument we had with the BBC and other broadcasters in the Eighties - namely, if our democratic political system is to be defended, is it reasonable to give equal weight and prominence to the opinions of extremists who wish to undermine the system?

Politics has changed since then, of course. Back then there were clear battles between right and left, capitalism and socialism, democracy and dictatorship (aka the Cold War). Indeed, one of the sad things about Britain today is that those of us who fought so hard to defend our democratic institutions have been badly let down by the "democrats" in power (and in opposition).

But the arguments about free speech haven't changed. Then again, Julian's point is not about freedom of speech. It concerns "privileged platforms". The danger is, if we accept this concept, it could so easily be abused by those wishing to stifle debate on all manner of subjects.

Like Julian, I abhor the BNP and what little I know of David Irving's views. But where do we draw the line? Who decides when (and where) a certain point of view can be expressed? I'm not sure I know the answer but it's an important issue because the definition of a truly free society depends on it.

Resignation story HERE. Update HERE.

War on free speech

Iain Dale (left), one of Britain's most successful bloggers (and a friend of The Free Society), drew attention last week to EU legislation that will curb our right to free speech. "Its aim," he wrote, "is to make holocaust denial a criminal offence, but it has far reaching implications beyond that. I have never believed that you can legislate on people's thought processes. If someone believes the holocaust didn't exist they are clearly bonkers, but does that mean they should be banned from articulating that view? Surely the best way to defeat such idiots is to expose their specious arguments? That's what you do in a free society." I couldn't have put it better myself.